Just how I feel as well. In V, you really have to (ab)use your civ's unique ability, and the terrain is much more bland - there's not as strong variation in tile yield, at least not for a large part of the game. This leads to games where the decisions are largely decided by what civ you roll, which quickly becomes repetitive.
Why didn't like you civ5?
- Thread starter Dida
- Start date
Just how I feel as well. In V, you really have to (ab)use your civ's unique ability, and the terrain is much more bland - there's not as strong variation in tile yield, at least not for a large part of the game. This leads to games where the decisions are largely decided by what civ you roll, which quickly becomes repetitive.
Archon_Wing
Vote for me or die
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,255
Bad UI, too many restrictions made it not fun (ROAD and unit maintenance). Can't make huge empires.
It's like a bad version of chess where the pieces sometimes don't go where you want them to.
It's like a bad version of chess where the pieces sometimes don't go where you want them to.
I just found it too easy. Playing Civ 4 I still cant win a standard game on hardest, can win some scenerios though. But on Civ 5 I could win on hardest by my 5th game. It was a joke. The AI cannot compete. No AI can be as smart as a person and they took away the AIs biggest advantage, brut power. To win I just waited till industrial age and build aircraft, Because their armies cant stack, but planes can be stacked in cities it was just a matter of bombing them into submission
Civking5
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2012
- Messages
- 393
When was this? Civ5 has changed a lot since latest patches and expansion.
I got Civ 5 when it first came out, played it for awhile but was rather disgusted with it. Maybe they have changed somethings since then, I havent bothered to keep track of it, Havent even installed it on my new computer. But they would have to be pretty massive changes.
jarhead_leif
Civ2ToT Modder
Wait for the next expansion for civ5 first before civ6. 
Civking5
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2012
- Messages
- 393
I think you will be disappointed when civ6 is out, because most likely 1upt will stay with it ( hopefully).
Combat mechanics have always changed from one iteration to another. I believe we will see that once more with Civ6.
But if 1upt stays, I just hope Civ6 got a designer with enough experience to take the consequences of such a decision rather than trying to force it into a format where it doesn't work.
TheWilltoAct
I am observe
If you had said these words a few years ago, we could take you for a prophet.
It's almost surreal the lengths the designers went to, just so they could shoehorn in an unwanted concept...
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
1UPT could work on a tactical map. As Civ5 has shown it is disaster on the main map. Really this was inevitable and I can't see any way to fix the problem. In view of the polarisation of the Civ community, separate strategic and tactical maps have to be the way of the future. It would at least attempt to satisfy both groups.
As for the hex grid, I could take it or leave it. I really don't care. From what I can see, there are people who are passionately in favour of it so I suppose it has to stay. The main problem with the hex grid is the way it impacts the BFC. It won't work well with the Civ1-4 fixed size version. It could work with the Civ5 idea of a BFC that grows organically. IMO, this concept was poorly implemented in Civ5 but I really don't have a better idea than the one they proposed.
As for the hex grid, I could take it or leave it. I really don't care. From what I can see, there are people who are passionately in favour of it so I suppose it has to stay. The main problem with the hex grid is the way it impacts the BFC. It won't work well with the Civ1-4 fixed size version. It could work with the Civ5 idea of a BFC that grows organically. IMO, this concept was poorly implemented in Civ5 but I really don't have a better idea than the one they proposed.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,993
Hexes are fine. Slow gameplay/awful UI and completely cluttered movement with ZoC further clouding that further are not. There's no reason you couldn't make a city hex limit of 2 in all directions if you wanted, with "influence" stretching out further.
But nothing is going to matter until they make a game that runs well on recommended specifications (firaxis has literally never accomplished that). Oh...having multiplayer work at all some time in the 1st year would also be helpful since they really seem to struggle with that one.
On the personal preference side of things, I think it's bad design in a civ game to shackle expansion to the point where it isn't viable in optimized play. This might just be a balance issue though; a large part of the reason more cities aren't attractive in civ V is that the game rewards social policies more than additional cities and that RA + diplo abuse > marginal return of additional cities too consistently. A big part of this element is, in fact, diplo abuse. Much of that stems from RA being overpowered, just as its predecessor (tech trading) is overpowered.
I'm glad they tried to modify tech trades in civ V. From a design perspective, that shows me promise even though I have literally 0 faith in them from a mechanical/technical perspective. This one feature as a standard has done more to break the balance of gameplay in civ than any other. All of your best micro can literally mean nothing before a simple trade alliance. Should relations and trade be valuable in a game like civ? Absolutely. Should it overpower all other mechanics to the point that, if you have excellent relations and trade just perfectly, you can gather a tech lead with a markedly inferior tech pace? Well...no.
RA were a step in the right direction, but their overwhelming impact relative to the marginal return of cities was a big stopping point in tall vs wide and you really got to see just how little other things matter than GPP and RA...much like GPP and tech trade for a lot of civ IV.
With trades off civ IV is a very different game...but its mechanics were never balanced around it. I want to see a civ where this aspect of "do nothing but swap for MASSIVE ROI" gets nerfed down to the point of minimal contribution, such that empire development takes the forefront and the game can be balanced around that instead of OP trades.
But nothing is going to matter until they make a game that runs well on recommended specifications (firaxis has literally never accomplished that). Oh...having multiplayer work at all some time in the 1st year would also be helpful since they really seem to struggle with that one.
On the personal preference side of things, I think it's bad design in a civ game to shackle expansion to the point where it isn't viable in optimized play. This might just be a balance issue though; a large part of the reason more cities aren't attractive in civ V is that the game rewards social policies more than additional cities and that RA + diplo abuse > marginal return of additional cities too consistently. A big part of this element is, in fact, diplo abuse. Much of that stems from RA being overpowered, just as its predecessor (tech trading) is overpowered.
I'm glad they tried to modify tech trades in civ V. From a design perspective, that shows me promise even though I have literally 0 faith in them from a mechanical/technical perspective. This one feature as a standard has done more to break the balance of gameplay in civ than any other. All of your best micro can literally mean nothing before a simple trade alliance. Should relations and trade be valuable in a game like civ? Absolutely. Should it overpower all other mechanics to the point that, if you have excellent relations and trade just perfectly, you can gather a tech lead with a markedly inferior tech pace? Well...no.
RA were a step in the right direction, but their overwhelming impact relative to the marginal return of cities was a big stopping point in tall vs wide and you really got to see just how little other things matter than GPP and RA...much like GPP and tech trade for a lot of civ IV.
With trades off civ IV is a very different game...but its mechanics were never balanced around it. I want to see a civ where this aspect of "do nothing but swap for MASSIVE ROI" gets nerfed down to the point of minimal contribution, such that empire development takes the forefront and the game can be balanced around that instead of OP trades.
Ghpstage
Deity
I think this may have something to do with the civ 5 patching policy of "Don't think, just nerf".
I remember the game at release having an immense ICS problem, possibly to the extent of making ICS more attractive than any other civ game ever. This of course should have been particularly embarrasing considering the lead designers pre release comments on trying to make small empires more viable.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,993
I wouldn't go that far. There was very little if any disincentive pre-civ IV. Corruption and waste? How many cities would it take and what kind of distance would you need before anybody started caring about that? Even then, the city was at worst useless - you were never actively penalized for simply owning an additional city (maybe if you overbuilt buildings there). At least with social policies coming very slowly and unhappiness stunting growth you had some form of negative tradoff to spamming cities forever in civ V even on vanillabetaretail release.
Of course you are absolutely correct with the "don't think just nerf" mentality. It's ironic that civ V "fans" call people out for mentioning that obvious tendency and saying we don't like it because it's different from civ IV (a favorite canned argument of fools). Why is it ironic? Because the "don't think just nerf" tendency is straight out of failaxis' civ IV patch policy, too.
There are lots of things that civ V shares with civ IV, including a large % of civ IV's worst flaws. The fact that they existed in civ IV and were well known is a part of the reason it's so grating they're still V. There was no clearer message to me as a player that failaxis didn't, and doesn't, care about the quality of its game.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
In the case of Civ 5, the "don't think just nerf" attitude pervades the entire design. It is far more than just in the patches. From the reduced tile yields to the absurd city growth formula, it is everywhere.
I think you are right, though, that it is found in the Civ4 patches too. Possibly this indicates a deterioration in the quality of talent at Firaxis after the departure of Soren Johnson.
I think you are right, though, that it is found in the Civ4 patches too. Possibly this indicates a deterioration in the quality of talent at Firaxis after the departure of Soren Johnson.
mynystry
jaguar warrior from hell
I played Civ5 right after it came out, and for the first time in (my) history, I got bored playing a Civ game and I didn't feel the urge of "just one more turn".
The problem for me is that Civ5 seems to be a dumbed down version of Civ4. I also dislike very much how they implemented the 1UPT idea. I think that was feasible, building armies instead of units, but that sounds complex, and I think the creators didn't want the game to be strategically challenging.
Only thing I liked about it was the Hexes, and the intro video is very cool too. Too sad the game is not good. I don't know what to expect if Civ6 comes out. I think the people of Firaxis should learn a little from all the great modders of Civ4. They could have made a wonderful Civ5 if they had considered some of the ideas of Rhye, Kael, BAT team, etc.
The problem for me is that Civ5 seems to be a dumbed down version of Civ4. I also dislike very much how they implemented the 1UPT idea. I think that was feasible, building armies instead of units, but that sounds complex, and I think the creators didn't want the game to be strategically challenging.
Only thing I liked about it was the Hexes, and the intro video is very cool too. Too sad the game is not good. I don't know what to expect if Civ6 comes out. I think the people of Firaxis should learn a little from all the great modders of Civ4. They could have made a wonderful Civ5 if they had considered some of the ideas of Rhye, Kael, BAT team, etc.
MilesBeyond
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 444
As so many others have said, 1UPT. Civ 5 apologists like to pop up and point out that SoDs aren't a very good system either, but few here are arguing to the contrary. It's just that while SoD was a pretty crappy system, at least it worked within the context of the game.
1UPT is just awful. It just doesn't work as a Civ game mechanic, period. The problem with 1UPT is that your production capabilities are always going to vastly exceed the amount of soldiers you can actually field. This means that yes, you'll spend more time than you should with nothing useful to build, but it also means that an empire with powerful infrastructure won't have as significant of a military advantage as they should.
What you've gotta know is that we're not opposed to 1UPT on principle. Most of us here aren't just avid Civ players, but avid TBS players in general. And a lot of TBS games use 1UPT, either overall (Panzer General, Battle for Wesnoth) or just in battle (Age of Wonders, Heroes of Might and Magic, Master of Magic). It's a system we're familiar with and many of us are quite comfortable with.
No, the problem with Civ 5 is that the 1UPT system was implemented in a way that was completely incongruous with the rest of the game mechanics. I feel like the devs had no idea how it would impact the rest of the game, and in their haste to address one problem, they ended up causing many more.
There were a great many other issues with Civ 5 - lack of most features added in Civ IV (Civ IV built on Civ III's successes and experiments, why would Civ V not do the same?), awful AI, useless diplomacy, broken multiplayer - but many of these have been addressed since release. 1UPT is the one thing that constantly ruins the game and seems to have no fix in sight.
As for positives? Many say hexes, but to be honest, I felt like the difference was fairly superficial. To me, the one really cool thing Civ V did was Social Policies. Unfortunately, they are (or at least were) not very well balanced at all, and I would prefer to see them in addition to Civics/governments, rather than instead of. Nonetheless, they had some really interesting ideas in there, and it was a cool experiment.
City states are, IMHO, what great people and golden ages were to Civ III. An experiment that kind of wobbled and flopped around a bit and you're not really sure if you like it or not, but something that could, with some expanding and rebalancing, become a really cool gameplay feature (as GP and GA did in Civ IV). Maybe an expansion?
Civ IV has two issues in common with Civ V: UI and AI. Both games need some dramatic improvements in those two areas. The other big issue is, of course, SoD; while it works far better with the Civ mechanics than 1UPT, it is still far from ideal. Stack caps have been suggested and I believe attempted, but the hard part is programming AI that can deal with it.
Other than that, I would only add a few minor balance changes to certain civics, wonders and buildings (It'd be nice to see people actually run Serfdom or build Chicken Pizza, for example), and a slightly more streamlined and cost-effective espionage system, and there are mods that do those things.
I think that Civ V fundamentally has three issues: It did a lot of work trying to fix what wasn't broken in Civ IV (global happiness, social policies, etc), when it did try to fix what was broken they ended up making it worse (1UPT), and they ended up completely ignoring the elements of Civ IV that needed to be fixed the most (AI, UI), again, making things even worse. And I'm just left asking: Why would I play this game over Civ IV?
1UPT is just awful. It just doesn't work as a Civ game mechanic, period. The problem with 1UPT is that your production capabilities are always going to vastly exceed the amount of soldiers you can actually field. This means that yes, you'll spend more time than you should with nothing useful to build, but it also means that an empire with powerful infrastructure won't have as significant of a military advantage as they should.
What you've gotta know is that we're not opposed to 1UPT on principle. Most of us here aren't just avid Civ players, but avid TBS players in general. And a lot of TBS games use 1UPT, either overall (Panzer General, Battle for Wesnoth) or just in battle (Age of Wonders, Heroes of Might and Magic, Master of Magic). It's a system we're familiar with and many of us are quite comfortable with.
No, the problem with Civ 5 is that the 1UPT system was implemented in a way that was completely incongruous with the rest of the game mechanics. I feel like the devs had no idea how it would impact the rest of the game, and in their haste to address one problem, they ended up causing many more.
There were a great many other issues with Civ 5 - lack of most features added in Civ IV (Civ IV built on Civ III's successes and experiments, why would Civ V not do the same?), awful AI, useless diplomacy, broken multiplayer - but many of these have been addressed since release. 1UPT is the one thing that constantly ruins the game and seems to have no fix in sight.
As for positives? Many say hexes, but to be honest, I felt like the difference was fairly superficial. To me, the one really cool thing Civ V did was Social Policies. Unfortunately, they are (or at least were) not very well balanced at all, and I would prefer to see them in addition to Civics/governments, rather than instead of. Nonetheless, they had some really interesting ideas in there, and it was a cool experiment.
City states are, IMHO, what great people and golden ages were to Civ III. An experiment that kind of wobbled and flopped around a bit and you're not really sure if you like it or not, but something that could, with some expanding and rebalancing, become a really cool gameplay feature (as GP and GA did in Civ IV). Maybe an expansion?
Civ IV has two issues in common with Civ V: UI and AI. Both games need some dramatic improvements in those two areas. The other big issue is, of course, SoD; while it works far better with the Civ mechanics than 1UPT, it is still far from ideal. Stack caps have been suggested and I believe attempted, but the hard part is programming AI that can deal with it.
Other than that, I would only add a few minor balance changes to certain civics, wonders and buildings (It'd be nice to see people actually run Serfdom or build Chicken Pizza, for example), and a slightly more streamlined and cost-effective espionage system, and there are mods that do those things.
I think that Civ V fundamentally has three issues: It did a lot of work trying to fix what wasn't broken in Civ IV (global happiness, social policies, etc), when it did try to fix what was broken they ended up making it worse (1UPT), and they ended up completely ignoring the elements of Civ IV that needed to be fixed the most (AI, UI), again, making things even worse. And I'm just left asking: Why would I play this game over Civ IV?
I actually really enjoy Civ V and only recently decided to take a break from it to replay civ IV. I really enjoy warfare in CiV and find it is one of the most interesting concepts of the game. Conducting wars in CIV almost feels boring by comparison. CiV is also really fun in my opinion because of the City States and the greater ability to play a tall empire. However, I really missed the great diplomacy, the micromanagement, and the large-scale wars of CIV. I really have a hard time comparing to the two because I believe the vast differences in their mechanics make them appear almost unrelated.
Oh well. The beauty of videogames is that I can always switch back and forth when I get bored
Oh well. The beauty of videogames is that I can always switch back and forth when I get bored
Similar threads
